Slashdot Mirror

Secondly, I agree that you cannot buy a gun through a dealer without a background check, but I do not believe a similar law has been passed for gun shows (though I've heard of several bills being debated in both state and federal legislatures). Correct me if I'm wrong (and provide links, please).

The laws regarding private sale vary from state to state. For instance, in my home state of NC, a private citizen can sell a longgun to another private citizen without the exchange of a purchase permit (the acquisition of which requires a background check). However, the sale of a handgun between any parties does require that the buyer present a purchase permit. This is regardless of where the sale takes place.

Meanwhile, across the state line in SC, a private citizen can sell either a longgun or a handgun to another private citizen without requiring the purchaser to present a permit.

Of course, there are limits to such an exchange that are more or less uniform. For instance, the person receiving the firearm must be qualified to purchase that firearm (ie, 18+ for a longgun, 21+ for a handgun, no felony convictions, no history of mental illness, etc). The seller is not required to conduct a background check on the buyer, but knowingly providing a firearm to someone who is not legally entitled to possess a firearm is a felony in itself. It's also a felony to provide a firearm to someone if you have knowledge that they will commit a crime with it.

As for the links, you can find information regarding federal firearms laws by visiting either the NRA Institute website or the ATF's online firearms info page. For information regarding your state's firearms laws, most have that information on the state's website or on the website of the Public Health and Safety Board for your state. If in doubt, Google.

Assume that everyone has a gun in their house with a trained operator. What do the criminals do now? Do they give up their life of crime, turn towards crimes with less possibility of injury (shop-lifting, B&E unguarded stores, scams, etc.), or do they start an arms race? What do they do when there are no more easy targets?

Criminals are looking for easy money. They aren't interested in a profession where they will be shot at on every job, and as I explained before, robbery is a crime that relies on stealth and speed. Get in, take what you want, and then get out. The fewer people that notice, the better chance you have to get away. A criminal will not go to a home, engage in a firefight with the occupants, then engage in another firefight with the police and possibly the neighbors, in order to escape with a thousand dollars worth of portable merchandise. It just isn't worth the risk. Your "arms race" proposal just isn't realistic.

Do you know what the fastest growing crime in the U.S. is? IDENTITY THEFT. Why? Because it's easy to do, there is very little risk of getting caught, and it is very profitable. Why shoot it out with an armed homeowner for some jewelry or electronics, when you can steal that homeowner's identity and rack up $50,000 in credit card debt without ever coming in physical contact with that person? So that is exactly what criminals would do if everyone was armed: give up B&E and switch to the easier, more profitable crimes.

And there will always be easy targets, whether it's the unarmed woman who strolls alone through a parking lot at 2am, or the armed ex-marine who throws away those junk mail credit card applications without shredding them first.

Agreed. When crime doesn't happen, it's not news. "If it bleeds it leads" as the saying goes. If anyone wants some good reading, check out this page. Yes, it's an NRA web page, however, the news information is from general sources (local newspapers/etc) and are independantly verifiable. It's just an index.

What cracks me up, is that while most of you think that anyone should be able to learn how to use a computer with a little time and effort, some of you think that as simple a machine as a gun is above the average person's grasp.

Hi there. I never checked back last week to see if my post was responded to, and tonight I see that it was. You wrote a very well reasoned reply, and I am sorry I didn't notice it sooner.

Since the national government was more of a loose federation of states at that point, I would lean away from Point #1 (as their original intent). And since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be more explicit rather than flowery language (barring a few places), I would lean away from the third interpretation.

• The rest of the Bill of Rights outline rights that the populace as a whole, have. What evidence supports the theory that the framers broke that pattern and intended the 2nd Amendment to only apply to the subset of the populace in the state militia?
• The Constitution and its amendments are the supreme law of the land. States can pass laws, but if they run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, then they are null & void. If the intent was to tell "each individual state to keep a militia", then why isn't that spelled out? The way the founders left it, a state could disband its militia and that would be totally constitutional. They couldn't, however, restrict the citizens from keeping & bearing arms. (But they still do.)

(By the way, I looked up the National Guard FAQ that you wrote about in your comment. All I could find was this small blurb that mentions the authority for the creation of the Guard. Their use of the 2nd Amendment does not exclude citizens from owning firearms. There can be both a militia [National Guard] and citizens who keep and bare arms. The two are not exclusive in my mind.)

In light of these real-world interpretations of other amendments, why do many members/supporters of the NRA (*cough*AshcroftnBush*cough*) feel that the second amendment should have no limitations whatsoever?

I support them in fighting gun registrations because history has shown that gun registrations are usually a prelude to gun confiscation. (See Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, California and New York.) I also support them in stopping the gradual encroachment on the types of guns we can own because there are many like you, who if they had their wish, "all guns would vanish tomorrow." (They don't have the where-with-all to admit it, though, like you do. They would use small bans to advance that agenda and settle for banning hand guns here, semi-automatic rifles there, until they reach their goal.) There is no good reason for law abiding citizens to be barred from having hand guns or semi-automatic rifles. (The only reasons I've ever heard boil down to what amounts to emotional security of those who have little experience with guns or the belief that citizens have no responsibility to protect themselves [i.e. it is the exclusive power of the government to protect the individual].)

The NRA does support keeping felons from owning/possessing firearms, which would be a "real-word interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, no? See the NRA FAQ for what their views are. I appreciate you honestly sharing your views in such a well-reasoned manner. Again, I apologize for not seeing your comment for over a week. Take care.

Excuse me?!? Millions of accidental shootings each year? My God, what a stupendously warped view of reality.

I couldn't find any readily available statistics for Europe specifically, but here are some numbers from the US:

Firearms deaths (1999):

Suicide: 16,599 (not accidental)
Homicide: 10,828 (not accidental)
Accidental: 824

Hmm, and even though these numbers are probably higher than Europe's numbers, they sure don't add up to a million, even altogether (28,575). As a matter of fact, even when added together they can't top the real "accidental death" champion by a long shot:

Motor Vehicles (1999): 42,401

Still going strong. But of course that's not a proper comparison. The accidental firearms deaths comprise the lowest number, below every other category of accidental death (Other, Environmental, Medical, Fire, Drowning, Suffocation, Poisoning, Falls, and Motor Vehicles, in increasing order). Oh, and by the way, homicides involving firearms have been dropping for about a decade, they're down about 90% from 1992. Hard to get that impression from the media, isn't it?

Now, I have no problem with anyone having the opinion that something is bad (firearms, for instance), even though I may vehemently disagree with that opinion. But at the very least if you're going to argue against something, please stick to reality and real numbers to support your opinion.

If we want to ban hate speech because it's damaging to others, we may want to think about that fact that ignorance about fundamental aspects of reality can be far more destructive. People like the parent poster scare me a hell of a lot more than some wacko skinhead group running a website. Hate crimes are bad, but I believe the real root of all of it is ignorance. Ignorance of reality, ignorance of right and wrong, ignorance of the fact that we're all the same, black, brown, red, yellow, pink, white or green. We're all just big "bags of mostly water", trying to eke out an existence on the microscopically thin two-dimensional surface of a sphere, surrounded by empty space. Hate groups are just empty fools, thriving on ignorance.

Reference for the numbers above: A spreadsheet from here:
http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Deta il&ID=127

And if you think the NRA/ILA has to make up numbers just because they're pro-gun, go to their source: National Center for Health Statistics. The same government that usually wants to ban firearms has little reason to deflate firearms statistics, now do they? If you don't even believe them, do your own research, but don't spout irrelevant numbers out of thin air.

Yes, China and Iraq are excellent examples of what happens to a country when the right to bear arms is violated. Great Britain

You must not have heard of, among other things, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. How about all of those surveillance cameras all over the place? 1984 just happened a few years later than predicted.

Germany

Maybe you missed this article about how they're censoring Google.

Switzerland

Given that they issue guns to everybody (full-automatic machine guns in most cases, which are kept at home), I don't see how this strengthens your case. If anything, it's further proof that an armed society is a polite society.

and Iceland

I don't know enough about them one way or the other, so I won't comment.

are all ruled by tyrants that oppress their people.

Fear the government that fears your gun.

I must have been farther away from gun legislation than I thought. to quote the NRA. All of the original civil suits have been overturned by appellate courts. Maybe this could be helpful?

Have you ever heard of the glock? it's not exactly made of any metalic content

You sir, are an ignorant fool. The Glock 17 (the so-called plastic gun the media had a fit over back in the 80's) had over a pound of steel in it. There is, nor has there ever been, no such thing as a plastic gun. Ceramic, maybe but that is highly unlikely.

To extend this a bit further, what if means were included to "revoke" privledges to record broadcasts after the fact, and disable existing copies? Then we'd be getting into an Orwellian nightmare.

/Prevention starts at the end-user, Janet!/ Yes, this is true. Talk to the NRA about it. How long have they been around, and pushing so we can keep our right to bear arms?? They keep saying education reduces the number of firearm related injuries than anything else (see the section called "Education Is The Key"). But still the laws get more restrictive. OTOH, I almost welcome the LawNet or whatever it is. Looking back, these types of things have always made us smarter. One quick example, when all the parents seemed real hot on restricting what their kids could see on the internet. The kids said, "Okay, NP, I'll be a good boy/girl." Then they go installed another browser and go exploring with no restricions. LawNet (or something like it) may be coming. Oh well.... I don't think it will be so terrible... hell, it might even give us something exciting to play with.

I think you have a valid concern for most parts of the world. However, I think GB does have a consistent record of violating their peoples rights for their saftey. One such saftey factor actually might make this a little bit better than the situation you describe above though... that is GB's TOUGH gun laws...

Here is some history.
Here is a pretty damn frightening article.
Here is some more interesting discussion.
Here is a chart.